• Infectious Diseases Study Site Questioned: The Department of Homeland Security relied on a rushed, flawed study to justify its decision to locate a $700 million research facility for highly infectious pathogens in a tornado-prone section of Kansas, according to a government report.

DHS Consolidates Software Licenses: ... avoid paying more than $87 million..."
=========
DHS is less than 10 years old. Why wasn't this done when it was created? FIRE someone! Stop hiring "IT" people who don't even have degrees as high-level managers. Stop hiring contractors! Stop outsourcing! Look at the $87M that could have been used to pay for real professionals.

Sadler writes:
"DHS is less than 10 years old. Why wasn't this done when it was created? FIRE someone! Stop hiring "IT" people who don't even have degrees as high-level managers. Stop hiring contractors! Stop outsourcing! Look at the $87M that could have been used to pay for real professionals."
----------
As this comment illustrates, the danger of any improvement in government performance and efficiency is that it sparks a kneejerk reaction like "FIRE someone!" instead of praise for the improvement. That kind of response teaches government employees they won't be rewarded for improving, streamlining, and saving money. We want to encourage changes like the money-saving change in this article, not use them as a launching pad for angry rants.

There is nothing in the original story to say that those who failed to get a group license originally (if it was even available on the same terms to government when the agency was founded) were non-government workers. I would assume they included senior management and therefore some of them WERE government workers.

There is also nothing to say whether the decision-makers (whether government or contractors) had undergraduate degrees or even advanced degrees. People with great "on paper" credentials can make poor decisions. People who have succeeded despite the lack of a college degree are often exceptional, and can make excellent business decisions. And the opposite can occur in each case.

I agree with the use of more on-staff employees with careers in government and the associated benefits. It is fairer to them and produces more continuity and experience for us. But making up stories about this incident, and who you assume "must have been" responsible for ten-year-old decisions doesn't help.

fairfaxvoter wrote: "We want to encourage changes like the money-saving change in this article..."
-------
Ahhh - the old "leave room to show improvement" routine. One can't get a bonus unless improvement is shown. Who is getting the bonus for the $87M in savings that should have saved all along?
=========
One of my first federal bosses told me he "could not" give me top performance on my first annual report as I would need to "show improvement" the next year. One of the first people I worked with in Federal service (when I was 17) chased me with a cart for moving equipment because I was repairing four items per DAY while he and his 'bud' were repairing four items per WEEK. He was concerned I was working them out of their jobs. Fortunately the shop supervisor walked by and saw him...I was assigned to another section where they had much more work to do.

More "government employees" should respond as I do vs. as you just did. I have been a government employee more of my adult years than not - civil service and military. I have also been a contractor.